User:Denni/User talk:Denni/2004 December Archive

Exploding whale

Hi, the topic itself for exploding whale (as pointed out by Meelar) should not be taken into consideration when voting on the Feature Article Candidacy page. The tone is a different matter. What in particular do you not like about it? I'll attempt to take this into consideration and modify the page accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, my vote remains to oppose. This story strikes me as one which is most appreciated by the rubberneck crowd - I can see nothing in it to enlighten, elicidate, or instruct. It is entirely sensationalist, and though it may teach a minor moral lesson about sticking explosives in without considering where the results may fall, it is first and foremost an off-color joke. Denni ☯ 00:15, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

S'OK, everyone's entitled to their opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain again, Denni, but could you address my query about the problems with the article's tone? I realise you think the article is beneath you, but I'd still appreciate a response. After all, if I can't get a more specific objection about the tone then it's not exactly an actionable objection, is it? Please respond on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Exploding_whale. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the Paul Linnman quote as being irrelevant. Had you actually viewed the footage, you would have noted that it is a highly significant part of his news footage. You may believe it was foolish, but I'm quoting him as straight out factual (and might I note interesting) material for the story. Just because you deem it foolish does not stop it from being relevant. Secondly, the fact that the birds were scared away is relevant because "they [Oregon Highway Division] believed that the use of dynamite would cause an explosion that would disintegrate the whale into pieces that were small enough for scavengers to clear up", which clearly did not happen. This fact is pointed out to show clearly that their theory was incorrect. Obviously you are wrong about it being obvious to everyone, because it certainly wasn't obvious to the Oregon State Highway Division! So also you can see it's not irrelevant to the story: on the contrary it's highly relevant.

And finally, your objection to the article topic is not actionable or valid as a reason for objecting to the article (as has been pointed out several times by various people (among them being Meelar, who wrote "Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable."). Please also note the top of the Featured Article candidates page says "If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored", which we'll have to do with your objection to topic in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please be careful! When you responded the edit history shows you duplicated this nomination somehow!!!! I've made the relevant fixes. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, please accept my total an unreserved apologies for accussing you of duplicating the entry. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clinical Depression

Could you please tell me why you reverted all my changes to this article.--CloudSurfer 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the only change you noted in your edit summary: unipolar depression. While this term may be confusing to you, it is not to either those suffering depression or those who treat them. It is an established term and should not be summarily excised from this article. If you had made other, smaller changes, I did not notice them in the (diff) review, and I apologise if I reverted appropriate changes accidentally.

Hey Denni. Check the dif: [1]. Remember roll-back reverts more than just the last edit. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the heading from that particular point as the following paragraphs were really about other names for clinical depression. As a psychiatrist I am more than familiar with the term. I was looking for clarity. --CloudSurfer 21:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I welcome you as an academician, but I would note in my defense of the rollback that (a) I looked at the other changes you made, ie, black bile and changes after menopause, and can say that the Canadian Mental Health Association concurs with me on these issues. However, few things in the mental health arena are cast in stone; I respect your more thorough knowledge (though I hope that you have not, unlike me, had to suffer clinical depression to gain a basis for your understanding). Denni ☯ 21:49, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Dear Denni, I understand it all much more now. Thank you. The "black dog" of depression is very distressing and thankfully I have only observed it from the clinicians side.

To address the specifics of above. On the black bile issue I removed the word "imagined". This is a value laden word and I felt it was not NPOV. The link leads to a discussion of the subject to help people understand that particular theory. I also mentioned that it is not "imagined" in that black bile does exist in the body although we no longer believe it is a factor in depression, or indeed in illness as it was considered by the ancients. On the menopause, I do think that I have read literature that stated that the sex differnce disappeared after the menopause with the incidence of depression occuring equally between men and women. I cannot pull a reference on this at the moment but would be grateful if you have a reference showing this is not the case and I will then alter the article and give this reference. Sanne has reverted my changes and I have also added a discussion on unipolar/bipolar to the discussion page. All the best. --CloudSurfer 22:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

I notice you have not modified your remark at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Paragraph_175. Do you still feel that the lead of Paragraph 175 needs further streamlining? I don't think I would do well to go further in that direction. -- Jmabel 07:22, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I get a lot more done when I'm out of work... -- Jmabel 01:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

The number 119

Denni, I apologize for acting like a deletionist in my edit yesterday of 119 (number). I was only trying to bring the article into line with the standards given at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Numbers. Anton Mravcek 17:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Could you draft guidelines on which astronomical data should be put in number articles to put at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Criterion for Including Cultural Associations? Anton Mravcek 17:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know much about Saros numbers and Messier/NGC notation, but they sound pretty standard. If that's the case then we want to have that information in the WikiProject Numbers articles. The kind of thing we want to avoid is extremely local and/or ephemeral information, the Sun was covered by clouds for 119 minutes in my town yesterday.

I look forward to reading your guidelines. Anton Mravcek 20:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have added them to the outline on the project page. What we need also is to draw a line between information that is eternal or universal enough to list in Wikipedia and information that is way too ephemeral to be worth listing in Wikipedia. I'm going to read up the articles on Messier objects, etc., and I hope the other project members do so also. Anton Mravcek 00:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Draw1.png

I don't know where Image:Draw1.png came from. It was uploaded before the Great Conversion, and AFAICT I merely added a label a few days later. Is there a way to find who uploaded it before the Great Conversion? -phma 03:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:DevonIs.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dresdenneustadtquarter.jpg can be deleted. greets, the uploader. ps: We have better images now, all with GNU license. The new ones have all necesarry remarks tagged now. So that one above has no longer any use. Thanks for checking. NetguruDD

The untagged image is now tagged

"Image:DuTTZi01.jpg" is now tagged. Thank you.

25 photos license updated

Tx for ur comment, all 25 photos' license have been updated. massa 03:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams & Historicity of Jesus as well as some thanks

Hey Denni,

I know we got off on the wrong foot with the whole exploding whale thing... sorry about that, now that I look back at my comments I see that I was a little overzealous! I really, really appreciate your ability to look past it and give me encouragement on my user page — that shows a real sign that you are a good editor :-) Actually, so good I may one day put you up as a candidate for adminship cause you take things seriously and deal with people fairly. What do you say (if you aren't one already that is!)?

(quick note on next bit: I'm sending this message to a few people as a general call for help) Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Just in case, User:Anthere/My pictures. By default, when I click on the save button, I also agree with a little text written just below the edit window. All what I do is under gfdl, unless otherwise mentionned.

Other than that, I am a bit overworked ;-)

Greetings. SweetLittleFluffyThing.

Image:Earth tilt sample.jpg

I've added a GFDL tag. That image was mostly intended as a rough draft, but I got lazy and haven't created a final version. Thanks for pointing it out (and let me know if you find others)! -- Wapcaplet 02:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image tag

I've gone and dealt with the un-tagged image. No worries about the shotgun, it's my fault I didn't tag the image in the first place and I'm glad you people are taking care of all that! Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image Earth icon2.jpg

You asked me to put an image copyright tag on Image:Earth icon2.jpg, which does not exist and seems not to have been deleted (no deleted revision info). Please check the name of the image you were checking on and let me know so I can have a look. Unless otherwise specified, all images I uploaded were released under the GFDL, per the upload license requirements in effect prior to the image tagging practice. You should expect to find sufficient descriptive text to clearly indicate any with a different status. Jamesday 19:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Black Widow

Denni, I'd suggest while tagging images that you might look at the user pages for people when you ask for copyright tags. I was tagging Image:AgnesSorel.jpg and was brought to User:Black Widow when I saw your post. If you look at that page (or at User:DW), you'll see that there's a hard ban out there. I just wanted to tell you so that Image:DucdeChoiseul.jpg doesn't remain with a {{unverified}} tag forever. I'm not sure if you're going to do anything more, but I'm putting my image up for deletion. --[[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682 (talk)]] 08:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Image tags

I wouldn't worry too much about images that aren't for the main namespace. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image tags

Denni, thanks for bugging me about my image tag. I've updated it to GFDL and gone looking for my other images too. And, the "English Sparrow" is a house sparrow, not a dunnock!

Image tags

Re. JSainsbury.JPG - this image is no longer used. I uploaded a scanned logo asserting fair use (logos). I have requested deletion of the original image - is that the correct way to go about it?

Re. EJ200S.JPG - I honestly can't remember where I found this picture. I'll take this opportunity to apologise, both of these uploads were early contributions of mine before I fully understood the importance of copyright. Mark 20:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re. East Prussia 1939.JPG. Sorry, I was away from my computer for a month. I made this map myself and if possible I wouldn't like anybody else to use it. Sincerely, Schwartz und Weiss 17:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

High Pressure

Here is what you said... and why I changed it...

A high, or a high pressure area, is a region of descending atmospheric air.

This is an oversimplification. Subsidence is a better term for this. I used that term. I'm not sure why you asked if I had taken it out, because I did nothing more than clarify..

Highs are mesoscale atmospheric features,

You can have macro|synoptic|meso|micro-scale high pressure.

They form at mid-latitudes and polar regions as a result of air which has been uplifted at the equator and Horse latitudes, transported poleward, and cooled.

I kept this because it describes climatological type high pressure, like the bermuda high, but this is something which needs to be expanded.

Light winds are generally associated with the presence of a high pressure area, and because they typically bring clear skies, they are frequently accompanied by temperature extremes in summer and winter.

This is good.

Here is why I said what I said...

A high, or a high pressure area, is a region where the atmospheric pressure is greatest with relation to the surrounding area

This is a simple and clear definition, which covers the smallest scales to the largest scales.

Highs are frequently associated with light winds and subsidence.

See, I left in the subsidence and light winds. It needs expansion still

Thus, they typically bring clear skies, which may accompany temperature extremes in both summer and winter.

This is true, but there are cases when you can get high pressure and rain. I'll expand on that someday soon.

They form at mid-latitudes and polar regions as a result of air which has been uplifted at the equator and Horse latitudes, transported poleward, and cooled.

Again, I kept this... would like to see it expanded.

So, sorry if I offended you. It was not my intent. Roodog2k 00:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made this a minor edit, since I did not feel that it changed the overall intent or meaning of the article. But point taken. Roodog2k 02:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for your review

Hello there, Denni. You seem like you are a reasonable person. Therefore I request a review from you about my work on Jacques de Molay. I have never received any feedback on any of my work here at Wikipedia, therefore I would like someone to do it. Why? To see if there are any way I might improve, of course.

Looking forward for an answer.

cun 02:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know the policy for this, but I'd like to make a notice that I've answered on my talk page. (What's the usual dealing with this?)

cun 03:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)